A. Refusal to work within the UN framework on foreign policy issues undermines multilateralism
Karen Mingst, Political Scientist, University of Kentucky, INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING, Winter 2003, p. 91. (DRG/E23)
More than anything, USambivalence about the UN is illustrated in the course of these events. It is an ambiguity driven by American political culture and domestic politics. At is root, it is an ambiguity which arises from the conundrum of the hegemon. The US has the power to act alone, power defined in terms of capabilities, but by exercising that power unilaterally and nakedly, the US may undermine the very multilateral system that it established, the system that is congruent with American interests ‘95 percent of the time.’
B. Multilateralism is the only way to sustainUSleadership and prevent a global power vacuum Fischer ‘6 (12/27, Joschka, German Foreign Minister, Miami Herald)
For only theUnited States-- with all its power and sense of mission -- had the ability to establish a new world order at the beginning of the 21st century. But to achieve this, the country would have had to subordinate its power to the goal of shaping the new order, much as it did at the close of World War II in 1945. Instead,Americasuccumbed to the temptation of unilateralism. National greatness for a world power always arises from its ability to shape the world. If a great power forgets this, or loses the ability to act accordingly, it begins to decline. Without a fundamental turnaround in American political consciousness, the unilateralist amnesia ofU.S.foreign policy will leave a huge vacuum in the global system. No other nation -- notChina,Europe,IndiaorRussia-- has the power and the sense of mission to take onAmerica's role. OnlyAmericawas B(and potentially still is) able to fuse realism and idealism, self-interest and ethics, in its foreign policy. Great tradition The United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the law of nations and international criminal law, even today's free and united Europe -- all are crowning achievements ofU.S.foreign policy. They mark the moments in history when America's power was used to further a global order, while also pursuing America's own interests in the most effective and sustainable manner. America's departure from this great tradition did not begin with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. As early as the final years of the Cold War, America's foreign-policy elite increasingly came to perceive the United States as a Gulliver tied down by political midgets, with their laws of nations, treaties and multilateral institutions. The existing world order -- created by the United States itself -- was first devalued in American eyes, then weakened and finally consciously attacked. Thus, the current debate about the consequences of defeat in Iraq still falls short -- because, despite all the critiques of American policy, the debate is still premised on the unilateral use of American power. This applies to the views of the Democratic opposition as well as to the Baker-Hamilton report. What is needed is a conscious, deliberate return to multilateralism. TheMiddle East,North Korea,Darfur, Central andEast Africa, theCaucasus-- in none of these places canAmericastill act successfully on its own. And yet, withoutU.S.power, the prospects in all these places are still bleaker: more dangers and more chaos. The situation is the same with respect to global growth, energy, resource management, climate change, nuclear proliferation, arms control and terrorism. None of these problems can be resolved or even contained unilaterally. Yet no attempted solution will get very far without decisiveU.S.leadership. This also applies to the future of the law of nations, the newly created International Criminal Court and the United Nations. Unless these rules and institutions are further developed, globalization, too, will take an ever more chaotic shape. Madeleine Albright once called the United States the ''indispensable nation.'' She was right. The question today is whether the current crisis of American consciousness marks the beginning ofAmerica's decline or, let us hope, the beginning of a return to multilateralism. The alternative to American leadership is a vacuum and increasing chaos. But within one or two decades, it may be China that will define the rules, if the United States continues to reject its multilateral responsibilities. For all these reasons, not onlyAmerica's friends have a vital interest in aU.S.return to multilateralism. Given the dangers of unilateralism for the current world order, so doAmerica's enemies.
Karen Mingst, Political Scientist, University of Kentucky, INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING, Winter 2003, p. 91. (DRG/E23)
More than anything, US ambivalence about the UN is illustrated in the course of these events. It is an ambiguity driven by American political culture and domestic politics. At is root, it is an ambiguity which arises from the conundrum of the hegemon. The US has the power to act alone, power defined in terms of capabilities, but by exercising that power unilaterally and nakedly, the US may undermine the very multilateral system that it established, the system that is congruent with American interests ‘95 percent of the time.’
B. Multilateralism is the only way to sustain US leadership and prevent a global power vacuum
Fischer ‘6 (12/27, Joschka, German Foreign Minister, Miami Herald)
For only the United States -- with all its power and sense of mission -- had the ability to establish a new world order at the beginning of the 21st century. But to achieve this, the country would have had to subordinate its power to the goal of shaping the new order, much as it did at the close of World War II in 1945. Instead, America succumbed to the temptation of unilateralism. National greatness for a world power always arises from its ability to shape the world. If a great power forgets this, or loses the ability to act accordingly, it begins to decline. Without a fundamental turnaround in American political consciousness, the unilateralist amnesia of U.S. foreign policy will leave a huge vacuum in the global system. No other nation -- not China, Europe, India or Russia -- has the power and the sense of mission to take on America's role. Only America was B(and potentially still is) able to fuse realism and idealism, self-interest and ethics, in its foreign policy. Great tradition The United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the law of nations and international criminal law, even today's free and united Europe -- all are crowning achievements of U.S. foreign policy. They mark the moments in history when America's power was used to further a global order, while also pursuing America's own interests in the most effective and sustainable manner. America's departure from this great tradition did not begin with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. As early as the final years of the Cold War, America's foreign-policy elite increasingly came to perceive the United States as a Gulliver tied down by political midgets, with their laws of nations, treaties and multilateral institutions. The existing world order -- created by the United States itself -- was first devalued in American eyes, then weakened and finally consciously attacked. Thus, the current debate about the consequences of defeat in Iraq still falls short -- because, despite all the critiques of American policy, the debate is still premised on the unilateral use of American power. This applies to the views of the Democratic opposition as well as to the Baker-Hamilton report. What is needed is a conscious, deliberate return to multilateralism. The Middle East, North Korea, Darfur, Central and East Africa, the Caucasus -- in none of these places can America still act successfully on its own. And yet, without U.S. power, the prospects in all these places are still bleaker: more dangers and more chaos. The situation is the same with respect to global growth, energy, resource management, climate change, nuclear proliferation, arms control and terrorism. None of these problems can be resolved or even contained unilaterally. Yet no attempted solution will get very far without decisive U.S. leadership. This also applies to the future of the law of nations, the newly created International Criminal Court and the United Nations. Unless these rules and institutions are further developed, globalization, too, will take an ever more chaotic shape. Madeleine Albright once called the United States the ''indispensable nation.'' She was right. The question today is whether the current crisis of American consciousness marks the beginning of America's decline or, let us hope, the beginning of a return to multilateralism. The alternative to American leadership is a vacuum and increasing chaos. But within one or two decades, it may be China that will define the rules, if the United States continues to reject its multilateral responsibilities. For all these reasons, not only America's friends have a vital interest in a U.S. return to multilateralism. Given the dangers of unilateralism for the current world order, so do America's enemies.